- (1.) In view of order passed in I.A. No. 6641 of 2014, Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Solicitor General of India advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioner seeking a direction from the Court for commencing mining operations in Dhobil Mining Lease in Manoharpur Mines, Chiria, West Singhbhum. It is submitted that vide letter dated 22.10.2014 an order in terms of Section 8(3) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 has already been passed by the respondentState of Jharkhand. The only dispute between the parties is, whether the State of Jharkhand can impose the conditions incorporated in the said letter dated 22.10.2014 and therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner should be prevented from commencing mining activities in Dhobil Mining Lease in Manoharpur Mines also. It is further submitted that in another Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 5368 of 2014 which was filed by the petitionerSteel Authority of India Limited with respect to Durgaiburu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines, has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2014 and the petitioner has been permitted to start mining operations. The present writ petition is identical to the earlier writ petition in all respects except, on two counts. First, in the Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 5368 of 2014, a decision in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957 was taken after an interim mandamus was issued by this Court whereas, in the present case, letter dated 22.10.2014 itself contains a decision of the State Government in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957. Secondly, in W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014 which was filed challenging letter dated 22.10.2014 issued with respect to Durgaiburu Mining Lease, the alleged amount of penalty was quantified whereas, in the present writ petition, no amount has been mentioned. It is further submitted that the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5368 of 2014 though has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand, vide order dated 11.12.2014 in I.A. No. 6222 of 2014 seeking stay of order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5368 of 2014, the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the said application and thus, has affirmed that the petitioner has a prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner and if, order dated 13.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 5368 of 2014 is stayed, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitionercompany. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India refers to paragraph nos. 15 and 16 in order dated 11.12.2014 of the Hon'ble Division Bench and submits that it is a fit case for grant of interim relief to the petitioner, permitting the petitioner to commence mining operations in Dhobil Mining in Manoharpur Mines, Chiria, West Singhbhum.
(2.) In opposition, Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submits that in "Goa Foundation", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all mining carried out without grant of second or subsequent renewals, are illegal. Relying on a decision in "Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr. Vs. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology & Anr., 2004 2 SCC 783", the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submits that the petitionercompany cannot claim any right over the land and mines belonging to the State. Without grant of mining lease, the petitioner cannot insist to commence mining operations in Manoharpur Mines. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no concept of deemed renewal in cases of second or subsequent renewal of mining lease and therefore, if an allottee is permitted to commence mining without an express order, such mining would be illegal. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that so long as the petitioner does not accept the conditions imposed vide letter dated 22.10.2014, it cannot be permitted to commence mining operations. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the vires of Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960. On these grounds, the prayer for a direction to the respondentState of Jharkhand for issuing an express order and permission to the petitionercompany to start mining operations in Dhobil Mining Lease in Manohar Mines, are opposed.
(3.) In reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India submits that letter dated 22.10.2014 does not refer to Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 and therefore, the petitioner is not required to challenge the said Rule. In L.P.A. No. 487 of 2011, the Hon'ble Division Bench has already held that prima facie, it appears that the State of Jharkhand has no objection if the mining activities are carried out by the petitionercompany. Mere filing of the Special Leave Petition against order dated 11.12.2014 of the Hon'ble Division Bench is of no consequence. A Special Leave Petition is not a matter of right and only when the Hon'ble Supreme Court deems fit, leave is granted to the petitioner whereas, a L.P.A. is a statutory right of appeal in which the respondentState of Jharkhand has failed to establish a prima facie case in its favour. It is further submitted that the petitionercompany is a company of National importance and the observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench that, "it is a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned, managed and controlled by Central Government and not a fly by night company, being in existence since more than half a century", is of utmost significance.;